Answer

In February, 2019, India launched airstrikes in Balakot, Pakistan, targeting Jaish-e-Mohammed terror camps in response to the Pulwama attack, which killed 40 CRPF personnel. Airstrikes, a preemptive military action using aerial assets, marked a shift from strategic restraint to offensive deterrence, reshaping India’s military doctrine against cross-border terrorism.

Balakot Airstrikes Marked a Shift in India’s Military Response to Cross-Border Terrorism

• Expanded Military Options: India moved beyond ground-based strikes, using air power for the first time to target terrorist camps deep inside Pakistan’s territory, breaking past self-imposed operational limitations.
  For example: The Balakot strike hit a JeM camp in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, over 80 km inside Pakistan, unlike the 2016 surgical strikes along the LoC, demonstrating a shift in engagement depth.
• Changed Rules of Engagement: The pre-emptive nature of the strike signaled that India would not wait for an attack but act proactively to neutralize threats, redefining deterrence dynamics.
  For example: India justified the strike as a “non-military pre-emptive action,” emphasizing the doctrine of preventive counterterrorism, making it clear that terror infrastructure would not be tolerated.
• Challenging Nuclear Deterrence: India demonstrated that limited conventional strikes could be conducted without escalating to nuclear conflict, eroding Pakistan’s strategic blackmail leverage.
  For example: Despite Pakistan’s nuclear posturing, India executed the strike without facing nuclear retaliation, weakening Pakistan’s deterrence claims and encouraging assertive policy shifts.
• Higher Escalation Threshold: By using fighter jets and precision strikes, India raised the conflict threshold, signaling its readiness for direct aerial engagements beyond traditional land-based responses.
  For example: The air battle on February 27, 2019, saw an Indian MiG-21 and a Pakistani F-16 being downed, indicating a shift to aerial confrontations and expanded warfighting domains.
• Stronger Political and Diplomatic Messaging: The airstrikes were accompanied by strong diplomatic efforts, reinforcing India’s stance against cross-border terrorism and shifting global narratives.
  For example: Major global powers, including the U.S. and France, supported India’s right to self-defense, isolating Pakistan diplomatically and pressuring it to curb terror financing.

Influence of Balakot on India’s Conventional Military Doctrine

• Integration of Air Power: Balakot established air strikes as a viable response to terrorism, expanding India’s military toolkit beyond ground operations, enabling deep-strike capabilities.
  For example: Then IAF Chief RKS Bhadauria stated that Balakot proved air power can be used with “escalation control,” reinforcing its role in future counterterrorism responses.
• Focus on Stand-off Weapons: The use of precision-guided bombs from Mirage-2000s showcased the preference for stand-off strikes over cross-border ground raids, minimizing risk to personnel.
  For example: Balakot’s success led to increased procurement of SPICE-2000 bombs, Rafale jets, and better target acquisition technology to refine long-range precision strikes.
• Shift to Deterrence through Punishment: India moved from strategic restraint to imposing direct costs on Pakistan, deterring future terrorist activities through proactive military engagements.
  For example: The 2016 surgical strikes targeted terror launch pads, while Balakot extended strikes into Pakistan’s mainland, indicating a more offensive-defensive stance.
• Enhanced Real-time Intelligence: The strikes emphasized the importance of satellite imagery, drones, and surveillance for high-precision targeting, improving battlefield awareness.
  For example: ISRO satellites provided critical intelligence, helping IAF pilots strike designated targets with precision, reinforcing India’s reliance on technological superiority.
• Greater Joint Force Coordination: Balakot reinforced the need for better synergy between intelligence, diplomacy, and military operations, ensuring quicker and more effective responses.
  For example: Post-Balakot, India’s defense establishment enhanced inter-agency coordination, leading to a more integrated security response, reducing reaction time to security threats.

Implications for Regional Security

• Higher Military Readiness: Both India and Pakistan have improved early warning systems, air defenses, and rapid response capabilities post-Balakot, increasing strategic preparedness.
  For example: Pakistan upgraded its radar network, while India strengthened air surveillance along the western border by procuring S-400 defense system, improving detection and interception capabilities.
• Increased Risk of Escalation: The acceptability of air strikes has raised the likelihood of future aerial conflicts, increasing risks of miscalculation and unintended confrontations.
  For example: Public pressure and strong political rhetoric could push both sides toward aggressive military responses, intensifying regional volatility.
• Weakening of Nuclear Deterrence: India’s success challenged Pakistan’s nuclear strategy, proving limited military responses are feasible without triggering nuclear war, shifting escalation calculations.
  For example: Despite nuclear threats, India carried out Balakot, showing nuclear deterrence is not absolute, encouraging more direct military engagements.
• Global Diplomatic Shifts: India’s firm stance on cross-border terrorism has gained wider international backing, isolating Pakistan and altering global counterterrorism dynamics.
• Encouragement of Proxy Warfare: With direct conflict becoming riskier, Pakistan may increase support for terrorist proxies and asymmetric warfare, leading to unconventional security threats.
  For example: Post-Balakot, terror infiltration attempts rose, suggesting a shift to low-intensity conflicts, complicating counterterrorism efforts for India.

Way Forward

• Enhancing Air and Missile Defense: Upgrade integrated air defense systems, missile shields, and early warning mechanisms to prevent potential retaliatory strikes and enhance security preparedness.
  For example: Deployment of S-400 missile defense systems along critical borders can neutralize aerial threats and deter Pakistani retaliation.
• Strengthening Diplomatic Leverage: Engage global forums like the UN, FATF, and QUAD to pressure Pakistan on counterterrorism commitments and prevent cross-border terrorism.
  For example: India’s lobbying led to Pakistan’s FATF grey-listing, impacting its economic stability and forcing partial compliance on terror financing.
• Developing Asymmetric Capabilities: Invest in cyber warfare, electronic intelligence (ELINT), and drone technology to neutralize threats through non-traditional, cost-effective means.
  For example: AI-driven surveillance and drone strikes can target terror hubs in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) without direct military engagement.
• Crisis Communication Mechanism: Establish a military-to-military hotline and regional de-escalation protocols to prevent miscalculations that could trigger unintended escalation.
  For example: A dedicated Indo-Pak crisis hotline at the highest military level can facilitate real-time communication during crises, reducing risks of accidental conflicts.

The Balakot airstrikes established a new threshold for military responses, reinforcing India’s right to self-defense while altering regional security dynamics. However, this shift necessitates diplomatic engagement, intelligence coordination, and military preparedness to balance deterrence with long-term stability in South Asia.

DOWNLOAD PDF